Next question: do you think you're the smartest person in the world and know everything?

I don't need to be the smartest in the world. I only need to explain factually as I did, that I am smarter (more experienced actually) than Vlad and Vitalik on these issues being discussed in this thread.

If you are incapable of comprehending technical details, that isn't my fault. It also means you are incapable of judging whom is more expert. The astute readers know how to study what I have written and listen to my video. Nothing you can write will change that. So just keep trolling and attempting to bury the truth with your insincere noise.

If you are incapable of comprehending technical details, that isn't my fault. It also means you are incapable of judging whom is more expert. The astute readers know how to study what I have written and listen to my video.

Any chance you could youtube your video, for ppl that don't want to download 200Mb?

So let's hear you display some knowledge of functional polymorphism? Explain ML functors? What is a type class and why are there no inductive types in Haskell?

Etc..

It's not functional polymorphism, but parametric polymorphism. A type class is the way of doing ad-hoc polymorphism in Haskell. There is not inductive types in Haskell because all types include bottom value.

Well I was thinking of precisely the following post which says "(parametric) polymorphism", but I term it functional polymorphism since it using functional parameters instead of parametric types of instantiable OOP objects:

(what a small world, I see Gregory Meredith participated in the above discussion)

No why would you assume such an absurd notion when I never indicated I suppose you just have an ego problem (must be your irrational association with VNL, did you invest your lunch money?). I obviously know I am not the only one since I learned about Haskell's bottom type populating all types via Robert Harper's blog post. I didn't ask you, I asked Fuserleer.

But I already was aware that Haskell inverts the type hierarchy and puts bottom at the top of the hierarchy, or rather let's say Haskell is the dual and has co-inductive types. I wrote more about that here:

If you truly know these matters and didn't just Google for them, then why on God's earth do you think VanillaCoin is a gem. Cripes surely you are smart enough to realize Zerotime and Chainblender are highly flawed.

So let's hear you display some knowledge of functional polymorphism? Explain ML functors? What is a type class and why are there no inductive types in Haskell?

Etc..

It's not functional polymorphism, but parametric polymorphism. A type class is the way of doing ad-hoc polymorphism in Haskell. There is not inductive types in Haskell because all types include bottom value.

Well I was thinking of precisely the following post which says "(parametric) polymorphism", but I term it functional polymorphism since it using functional parameters instead of parametric types of instantiable OOP objects:

(what a small world, I see Gregory Meredith participated in the above discussion)

No why would you assume such an absurd notion when I never indicated I suppose you just have an ego problem (must be your irrational association with VNL, did you invest your lunch money?). I obviously know I am not the only one since I learned about Haskell's bottom type populating all types via Robert Harper's blog post. I didn't ask you, I asked Fuserleer.

But I already was aware that Haskell inverts the type hierarchy and puts bottom at the top of the hierarchy, or rather let's say Haskell is the dual and has co-inductive types. I wrote more about that here:

If you truly know these matters and didn't just Google for them, then why on God's earth do you think VanillaCoin is a gem. Cripes surely you are smart enough to realize Zerotime and Chainblender are highly flawed.

Here one can try to follow and will find out that Casper might work with a reduced set of "well" defined type sub class so that scripts can terminate.

3. The algorithm will be changed to PoS, yet its entirely unclear how the current currency can survive this.

AFAIK, and I'd like to be corrected with tangible evidence, nobody uses the software for anything. All the examples I've seen were theoretical. It is, as far as I can tell a purely speculative vehicle.

I agree, but I remember back in the days of the start of the internet. Many theories, nobody interested. Then those theories became real and everybody started going wooo. Then the companies went public and people called them unprofitable rubbish. Then they started making big profits after 5 years. And those boys who were talking theories and were being laughed at are all now billionaires and we know their names.

3. The algorithm will be changed to PoS, yet its entirely unclear how the current currency can survive this.

AFAIK, and I'd like to be corrected with tangible evidence, nobody uses the software for anything. All the examples I've seen were theoretical. It is, as far as I can tell a purely speculative vehicle.

3.POS is still in development and the currency will survive it just fine in fact it will probably increase in value, again.

We are at the end of an Austrian "Crackup Boom" cycle globally, where excess credit has destroyed all profitable investments. Given the global collapse contagion underway which will accelerate from 2017 to 2020, the exodus from government bonds (and other conservative investments which are no longer viable) has really only one place to go (as Martin Armstrong predicted):

stock speculation

$450 million mcap is nothing. No where near $450 million has changed hands, rather only $10s of millions at most.

So everyone position yourself to partake of the trend. Fundamentals aren't the only factor involved. Speculation follows speculation.

3. The algorithm will be changed to PoS, yet its entirely unclear how the current currency can survive this.

AFAIK, and I'd like to be corrected with tangible evidence, nobody uses the software for anything. All the examples I've seen were theoretical. It is, as far as I can tell a purely speculative vehicle.

3.POS is still in development and the currency will survive it just fine in fact it will probably increase in value, again.

We are at the end of an Austrian "Crackup Boom" cycle globally, where excess credit has destroyed all profitable investments. Given the global collapse contagion underway which will accelerate from 2017 to 2020, the exodus from government bonds (and other conservative investments which are no longer viable) has really only one place to go (as Martin Armstrong predicted):

stock speculation

$450 million mcap is nothing. No where near $450 million has changed hands, rather only $10s of millions at most.

So everyone position yourself to partake of the trend. Fundamentals aren't the only factor involved. Speculation follows speculation.

Insiders buying from themselves to pump up daily volume is a well known tactic of shrilling shit coins. Welcome to the party. Seems you need to catch up on your education of how market manipulation works when the insiders control a large percentage of the float.

Again 96% of all ETH volume is done on two exchanges. I don't see those exchanges sharing their KYC data on who is trading with whom. So it is impossible for anyone to refute this.

Insiders buying from themselves to pump up daily volume is a well known tactic of shrilling shit coins. Welcome to the party. Seems you need to catch up on your education of how market manipulation works when the insiders control a large percentage of the float.

Again 96% of all ETH volume is done on two exchanges. I don't see those exchanges sharing their KYC data on who is trading with whom. So it is impossible for anyone to refute this.

Nope. That's just your personal opinion, not fact set in stone, which you will also find impossible to prove. Others have a different opinion of the ETH daily volume.

Insiders buying from themselves to pump up daily volume is a well known tactic of shrilling shit coins. Welcome to the party. Seems you need to catch up on your education of how market manipulation works when the insiders control a large percentage of the float.

Again 96% of all ETH volume is done on two exchanges. I don't see those exchanges sharing their KYC data on who is trading with whom. So it is impossible for anyone to refute this.

Nope. That's just your personal opinion, not fact set in stone, which you will also find impossible to prove. Others have a different opinion of the ETH daily volume.

Where is your proof?

I've never seen a case where humans didn't take money that was sitting in front of their faces to take. The insiders always do this, unless they are worried about being caught and prosecuted. But since ETH was an illegal unregistered investment security launched from Switzerland to attempt to side step SEC (and I presume EU) regulations[1], we don't have to doubt whether they feel constrained by any regulators.

[1] But they marketed it to US investors so they are still in violation of SEC law.